"No Color Whatever"

In 1921, a few blocks down S Street, Washington, from where Woodrow Wilson made his residence, John J. Buckley, Irene Hand Corrigan and a number of other property owners in that section made an agreement among themselves They mutually bound themselves not to allow their property to be used, occupied, purchased or leased by a person of Negro blood; nor were they to give their property to such a person. This engagement was to be effective for 21 years.

But in the following year, 1922, Mrs. Corrigan agreed to sell a house on the property to Mrs. Helen Curtis, known likewise as Mrs. A. L. Curtis. After the agreement had been made it was discovered that Mrs. Curtis was a person of Negro blood. Then the trouble began. Mr. John J. Buckley, one of the parties to the agreement, brought suit in equity to prevent the transfer of the property to Mrs. Curtis. For four years the case was fought. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supported Mrs. Curtis and Mrs. Corrigan against Mr. Buckley, and other organizations joined in the legal struggle against this type of "segregation"--one of the great issues which those who favor the Negro are fighting.

In the District of Columbia Supreme Court, and in the Court of Appeals, Mr. Buckley won. Transfer of the property to Mrs. Curtis was prohibited. The lawyers of the Negro organizations--Moorfield Storey, Louis Marshall, Arthur B. Spingarn--fought the case in the Supreme Court. Last week Justice Sanford read the court's decision.

He pointed out that the only constitutional ground which Madams Corrigan and Curtis had for maintaining that the property owners' agreement was invalid, was that it was contrary to the Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Fifth amendment says, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." This, said Mr. Sanford, is a limitation only upon the powers of the general government.

The Thirteenth says that there shall be no "slavery or involuntary servitude" except for convicts. This, said Mr. Sanford, does not in other matters protect the rights of Negroes.

The Fourteenth says that no state shall abridge the privileges of citizens "nor deny any person . . . the equal protection of the laws." This, said Mr. Sanford, refers to state action entirely and has nothing to do with individual invasion of individual rights.

He concluded:

"It is obvious that none of these amendments prohibited private individuals from entering into contracts respecting the control and disposition of their own property, and there is no color whatever for the contention that they rendered the indenture void."

The case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Unless new legal grounds can be found against property owners making private agreements to exclude Negroes, there is nothing to prevent such action.